Neoliberalism and its impact on Latin American crime control fields
| Author | Manuel Iturralde |
| DOI | 10.1177/1362480618756362 |
| Date | 01 November 2019 |
| Published date | 01 November 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
756362TCR0010.1177/1362480618756362Theoretical CriminologyIturralde
research-article2018
Article
Theoretical Criminology
2019, Vol. 23(4) 471 –490
Neoliberalism and its impact
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
on Latin American crime
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480618756362
DOI: 10.1177/1362480618756362
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
control fields
Manuel Iturralde
Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a growing debate on how, and whether, during the past
three decades, a neoliberal penal State, with close ties to the new economic order, has
emerged in the United States and in other nations of the Global North. This article
seeks to analyse, based on the criticisms that the neoliberal penal State theory has
been subject to, whether, and to what extent, such a take on neoliberalism and the
penal State may contribute to attaining a plausible explanation of Latin American crime
control fields.
Keywords
Citizen security, crime control fields, Latin America, law and order, neoliberalism,
neoliberal regimes, penal populism, penal State, political economy, post-neoliberal
regimes, punishment, war on drugs, zero tolerance policies
The political sociology of neoliberalism and its relevance
for the analysis of Latin American crime control fields
In recent years, there has been a growing debate on how, and whether, a neoliberal penal
State has emerged in the United States, as well as in other nations of the Global North
over the past three decades. Authors like Loïc Wacquant, one of the key advocates of this
analytical perspective, have set out to provide a sociological analysis of neoliberalism as
a new form of government (Wacquant, 2009). According to this view, the expansion of
the penal State, which began in the mid-1970s, makes up part of a strategy promoted by
Corresponding author:
Manuel Iturralde, Associate Professor, Law Department, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
Email: miturral@uniandes.edu.co
472
Theoretical Criminology 23(4)
society’s dominant classes to redefine, for their own benefit, the limits and the mission
of the State. The primary role of the neoliberal State is to defend the new economic order,
based upon the hyper-mobility of capital and the flexibility of labour. Towards this end,
the State must guarantee its control, through punitive measures, over the social destabi-
lization that market deregulation and the suppression of social welfare programmes (both
key aspects of neoliberalism) have wreaked upon marginalized urban groups (Wacquant,
2009: 303).
This article examines whether the neoliberal penal State, with its distinctive features
and framework, may be applied, and if so to what extent, to the Latin American context.
This debate has inspired a critical conversation on the political economy of punishment
in different Latin American countries and the influence of neoliberalism in the region
(see Azevedo and Cifali, 2016; Grajales and Hernández, 2016; Hathazy, 2013; Iturralde,
2010a, 2010b, 2016; Müller, 2011; Paladines, 2016; Sozzo, 2016a, 2016b). In turn, this
deliberation has led to more complex and interdisciplinary discussions about the voy-
ages, transplants, adaptations, diffusion and also innovation of penal technologies and
ideologies, as well as the key players involved in such disputes.
Although the focus of this article is on the impact of neoliberalism in Latin American
crime control fields, it will draw on the wider literature about this phenomenon and its,
alleged, global expansion and predominance as economic theory, political ideology, pol-
icy paradigm and social imaginary (Evans and Sewell, 2013: 36). Considering that there
has been a broad analysis of neoliberalism and its impact on different social fields (see,
for example, Evans and Sewell, 2013; Fourcade and Babb, 2002; Harvey, 2005;
Mirowski, 2013), crime control fields are regarded as yet another scenario where such
discussion may take place (Cavadino and Dignan, 2006; Garland, 2001; Van Houdt,
2014; Van Houdt and Schinkel, 2013; Wacquant, 2009).
Before proceeding, one cautionary note is necessary about the use of the term ‘Latin
America’ to discuss the features of so many countries and societies, which have followed
different paths through their complex and rich history. Using such a term implies a sig-
nificant degree of generalization and oversimplification—precisely one of the weak
points of the general theories of neoliberalism. Nevertheless, the alternative representa-
tion of Latin American countries as displaying unique and independent historical trajec-
tories, disconnected from a global context, also risks oversimplifying and reducing
complex relationships, and thus provincializing Latin American societies, making them
irrelevant and isolated from the international concert. This article aims only to provide a
sketch of some general trends that show an impressionistic picture of some of the social
fields of Latin American countries, particularly their crime control fields. Thus, a histori-
cally nuanced and detailed account of each national trajectory and the transformations of
their crime control fields is beyond the reach of this article.
Despite their limits, narratives on the structural similarities of the transformation of
crime control fields in different countries are compelling because they illuminate simi-
larities in penal practices and penal values that have come to prevail in diverse contexts,
despite their differences in political regimes and economic conditions. As David Garland
says, it suggests that similar structural forces are at play, producing similar patterns, even
though they occur in diverse political and legal settings. So, it becomes a pressing ques-
tion to establish how these similarities came about, as well as the mechanisms and
Iturralde
473
processes that may link them (Garland, 2004: 179). Even if each national pattern is
unique, there is a reasonable expectation that there will be a limited variety of patterns
that shape crime control fields in different contexts, which may be categorized in recur-
ring types (Garland, 2004: 180).
As to Latin American countries, despite their variety and unique particularities, in
many respects they do have a shared past, similar historical trajectories deriving from a
common process of colonization from the 15th to the 19th centuries, and comparable
features that distinguish them from their North American neighbours and other regions
of the world. They also share a legal culture, originating in their colonial past, with par-
ticular features (legal formalism, conservatism and authoritarianism) which has had a
great impact on their legal fields (García and Rodríguez, 2003; Iturralde, 2010b).
Traditionally, the discourse, practices and institutions that have dominated these fields
have been the domain of lawyers (particularly Criminal and Public Law lawyers), who
constituted themselves as an elite with broad influence in governmental posts, Congress,
advisory committees that drafted criminal laws and the academy. Such an elite shared
close social and educational links, for they came from high classes, with a long trajectory
in politics and economic affairs. This elite also chose Law as the ideal career to form
State leaders.
Undergraduate studies took place in their countries of origin, which shared the same
legal culture, highly influenced by that of Continental Europe (mainly Spain, Portugal,
France and Italy). Once they attained a Law degree, many members of the elites travelled
to Europe to obtain postgraduate degrees and experience. After a few years, they returned
to their home countries and practised law, joined politics or occupied the high ranks of
public office in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. This was the elite that
exerted power and influence on the legal and political fields after the independence from
colonial powers (19th century) to well into the 20th century.
But after the second half of the 20th century this changed. As the United States rose as
a global power, with great influence in Latin American affairs, their legal, political and
economic fields changed as a result of the growing influence of the US political, eco-
nomic and academic discourses. The new breed of Latin American leadership and techno-
crats educated in the United States has had a varied impact in Latin American social fields.
Economists, and economic discourse, have increasingly replaced lawyers as the political
and technocratic elite leading the way towards the modernization of the State and the
opening up of Latin American economies to a global market (see Dezalay and Garth,
2002; Fourcade and Babb, 2002). In this regard, the influence of neoliberal ideology and
technologies, starting with the Chicago boys in Chile and shored up by the Washington
Consensus,1 have widely been recognized (see Dezalay and Garth, 2002; Fourcade and
Babb, 2002; Harvey, 2005; Portes, 1997; Portes and Hoffman, 2003; Rodríguez, 2009).
Regarding the legal field, during the 1990s, at the same time that neoliberalism
became influential in the economic fields of many Latin American countries, a broad
democratization process was taking place in practically the whole region. Many coun-
tries (i.e. Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Bolivia, Honduras), were
overcoming military dictatorships, while others were putting an end to internal armed
...
To continue reading
Request your trial